Reposted by Samuel MooreEllen Forget @ellenforget.bsky.social · 28/09/2026Abstracts are due this week! October 1. We take a broad view of "publishing" and are very interested in non-traditional forms of publishing and accessibility. Please get in touch if you have questions or want to float an idea before submitting an abstract. 1611
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 12hIdea for a podcast where people sit on the Cambridge guided busway and chat about their favourite 90s music. It's called Guided Bus Voices. 250
Reposted by Samuel MooreRanjodh Singh Dhaliwal @ranjodhdhaliwal.com · 29/09/2026Starting 'The State of Digital Studies' here in Basel today with @berrydm.bsky.social talking about the Vector Paradigm. Register via contralab.online/state-of-dig... 0116
Reposted by Samuel MooreCRASSH @crasshlive.bsky.social · 29/09/2026Visit our 25th anniversary exhibition! 🎉 Knowledge in a Fractured World CRASSH, CB3 9DP 5 Oct- 11 Dec 9am-7pm weekdays PV 19 Oct 5.30pm RSVP bit.ly/3VBgR1x A showcase of interdisciplinary research alongside a fascinating collection of works by international artists. 032
Reposted by Samuel MooreSamuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 29/09/2026"They then often had 2–3 days — and in some cases just 24 hours — to assess a manuscript and submit their report to the platform. Most interviewees reported receiving payments of €30–40 (around US$35–45) per review." This right here is why peer review micropayments are a bad idea.nature.comPaid to peer review: firms are paying researchers to assess manuscripts for journalsFreelance peer-review jobs through third-party companies raise practical and ethical questions. 1116
Reposted by Samuel MooreDARIAH-EU @dariaheu.bsky.social · 29/09/2026📣 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐃𝐀𝐒𝐓 Kick-Off! DARIAH team is in Heidelberg, Germany this week for the kick-off of 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐑𝐃𝐀𝐒𝐓 (𝐒𝐓𝐞𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐃𝐀𝐭𝐚 𝐒𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐓𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭) project. 🔗 Learn more: cordis.europa.eu/project/id/1... Stay tuned for more updates about #STARDAST and the other projects DARIAH is involved in! 052
Reposted by Samuel MooreDuncan Bell @duncanbell.bsky.social · 29/09/2026JOB: Directorship of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology / Professorship of Material Culture University of Cambridge www.cam.ac.uk/jobs/directo...cam.ac.ukDirectorship of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and Professorship of Material CultureThe Board of Electors invite applications for the Directorship of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology and the Professorship of Material Culture from persons whose work falls within the general ... 1915
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 29/09/2026"They then often had 2–3 days — and in some cases just 24 hours — to assess a manuscript and submit their report to the platform. Most interviewees reported receiving payments of €30–40 (around US$35–45) per review." This right here is why peer review micropayments are a bad idea.nature.comPaid to peer review: firms are paying researchers to assess manuscripts for journalsFreelance peer-review jobs through third-party companies raise practical and ethical questions. 1116
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 29/09/2026Well this is crap. Sage has acquired Lawrence & Wishart's journal programme that includes New Formations and Soundings. www.eurekalert.org/news-release...eurekalert.orgSage becomes new home of Lawrence & Wishart journalsSage will become the new publisher of the Lawrence & Wishart journals portfolio, a collection of longstanding journals that have helped shape debate in politics, culture, education and social chan... 011
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 28/09/2026"The findings indicate that another form of openness is possible, but only if it is approached as commons’ stewardship rather than indiscriminate release into proprietary systems." New article by Katja Mayer on the relationship between AI and open science.cambridge.orgAI, open science, and the extraction imperative: A situated approach to the normativities of open research data | Cambridge Forum on AI: Culture and Society | Cambridge CoreAI, open science, and the extraction imperative: A situated approach to the normativities of open research data - Volume 2 1102
Reposted by Samuel MooreSarah Brouillette @sarahbrouillette.bsky.social · 28/09/2026my book is out now 🫶 💗 $18 with coupon code E26CNTNT enjoy!!!??? :)dukeupress.eduContent Machines: Reading and Writing in the Platform Era 55826
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 28/09/2026I was having so much fun that I dropped my access card somewhere and it was a massive faff to get back in. Never found it. 100
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 28/09/2026My phone reminded me that it's three years since I took my 3yo daughter's favourite toy to the library to show her what I do all day. 270
Reposted by Samuel MooreJohnny Mains @johnnymains.co.uk · 28/09/2026Trish Keenan would have been 58 today. Everyone go listen to some Broadcast. 322157
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 28/09/2026This piece by Nyna Amin et al. looks great on the exclusion of HSS research traditions from open science policy. Relevant to the work we're doing in @morphss.bsky.social 022
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 28/09/2026"The South African Open Science Policy 2026 [...] is formally committed to the democratisation of knowledge and epistemic equity. Yet a critical reading reveals that the Policy reproduces, through its own discursive architecture, the epistemological hierarchy it claims to dismantle."nature.com 101
Reposted by Samuel MooreSimon is on strike ✊🏻 @simonxix.com · 28/09/2026Regretfully, I am on strike today from my role maintaining @edinburghdiamond.bsky.social and open community hosting for Scotland's open publishing infrastructure. University of Edinburgh senior management refuse to rule out future mass redundancies or ongoing financially driven restructuring. 14019
Reposted by Samuel MooreJoe Bak-Coleman @jbakcoleman.bsky.social · 27/09/2026Had my first email arising from what seems to be an LLM-guided spite-check of my published code. Anyone else experienced this yet? I'm pulling the repo and verifying the possible error, will happily correct if need be but this seems like a great way to DDoS scientists. #metascience #AcademicSky 10556
Reposted by Samuel MooreSamuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 27/09/2026One of the worst things about the current moment is the complete lack of imagination associated with "can AI do it?" Why not make peer review a social process that's less arbitrary and gatekeeping but generative and conversational?chronicle.comOpinion | Could AI Be Better at Peer Review Than Humans?A journal editor weighs the pros and cons. 2298
Reposted by Samuel Moorelindsay thomas @lindsaythomas.net · 23/09/2026Spending a lot of time with the Publisher’s Weekly archives (sometimes I think/fear this project should just be called “A Deep Dive into the Publisher’s Weekly Archives with Lindsay”) and this is of the weirder quotes about trade paperbacks I’ve come across. So specific! So weirdly gendered! So 1955 2113
Reposted by Samuel MooreTech Policy Press @techpolicypress.bsky.social · 27/09/2026Tech Policy Press editor Justin Hendrix talks with danah boyd, author of Data Are Made, Not Found: A Story of Politics, Power, and the Civil Servants Who Saved the US Census, about how the 2020 census came together amid fractured politics and a pandemic, and what it means for the next one.techpolicy.pressThe 'Jenga Politics' Threatening the US CensusA conversation with danah boyd, author of Data Are Made, Not Found: A Story of Politics, Power, and the Civil Servants Who Saved the US Census. 052
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 27/09/2026It's just so bloody lazy. There are lots of people out there working on improving peer review in careful and productive ways, but the discourse is entirely about whether commercial LLMs can "do it". 193
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 27/09/2026No let's rehearse all its worst features with AI instead. 190
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 27/09/2026One of the worst things about the current moment is the complete lack of imagination associated with "can AI do it?" Why not make peer review a social process that's less arbitrary and gatekeeping but generative and conversational?chronicle.comOpinion | Could AI Be Better at Peer Review Than Humans?A journal editor weighs the pros and cons. 2298
Reposted by Samuel MooreSamuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 26/09/2026At the end of these kinds of articles, someone always proposes a systemic change about how we need to stop valuing honorifics, publisher prestige, article volume, etc. The solutions never grapple with the fact that we don't have the first clue what to replace this stuff with, let alone how to do it.nature.comExclusive: Sham scientific societies are misleading star researchersA Nature investigation reveals a network of organizations that have been building their ranks through deceptive practices. 282
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 26/09/2026Hmm, not convinced. I actually think that your argument is conservative because it's about individual behaviour. When problematised in this way, it'll end up looking for solutions that are about regulating behaviour rather than nurturing collective governance and better conditions. 110
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 26/09/2026The "incentives" are shaped by material conditions and a lack of academic governance, not arbitrary metrics that will just get replaced by other arbitrary metrics unless the former problems are addressed. 040
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 26/09/2026At the end of these kinds of articles, someone always proposes a systemic change about how we need to stop valuing honorifics, publisher prestige, article volume, etc. The solutions never grapple with the fact that we don't have the first clue what to replace this stuff with, let alone how to do it.nature.comExclusive: Sham scientific societies are misleading star researchersA Nature investigation reveals a network of organizations that have been building their ranks through deceptive practices. 282
Reposted by Samuel MooreKieran Healy @kjhealy.co · 26/09/2026It’s kind of embarrassing how susceptible academics are to this sort of nonsense. It should be straightforward to establish the existence or non-existence of prestigious honor societies or “academies” in fields you are nominally a leading expert in, for heaven’s sake.nature.comExclusive: Sham scientific societies are misleading star researchersA Nature investigation reveals a network of organizations that have been building their ranks through deceptive practices. 76510
Reposted by Samuel MooreJohanna Winant @johannawinant.bsky.social · 25/09/2026The English department at Reed College—my department—is hiring a TT prof in post-45 US fiction and/or narrative. This position includes teaching in the interdisciplinary humanities program (mostly the freshman core course) as well as possibly contributing to upper level interdisciplinary programs.reed.edu Tenure-Track Assistant Professorship in Post-1945 Fiction and/or Narrative of the United States - Office of the Dean of the Faculty - Reed C... 18342
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 25/09/2026Yeah, I think we have to be pretty open about the fact that commercialisation taints everything. It's hard to run a diamond journal and so we should try to make it easier! 020
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 25/09/2026This is clearly an illustration of how difficult it is to stay ethical in a publishing world oriented towards revenue generation. The conclusion is indeed that more support is necessary for non-commercial and community-led journals, not that publishing is an inherently commercial activity. 171
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 25/09/2026'Matthias and her co-authors note that diamond fractures are not failures of individual journals, but reflect the challenges that journals face in a publishing ecosystem that “rewards commercialization and provides insufficient structural alternatives”.'nature.comHundreds of ‘free’ academic journals have started charging feesA study tracking diamond open-access journals has found an increase in titles switching to other publishing models — especially over the past few years. 122
Reposted by Samuel MooreSamuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 25/09/2026I read the article on which this story is based and I can't believe that journals are still accepting research about predatory publishing based on **Beall's List** www.timeshighereducation.com/news/china-s...timeshighereducation.comChina ‘spends $7 million’ on research for retracted papersWith country now holding largest share of research retractions globally, scholars hope putting a number on the problem will trigger action 2146
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 25/09/2026I think metaresearch can be a very helpful position to adopt towards one's own disciplinary traditions and practices, but it's also worth taking this risk seriously given the people promoting it. 000
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 25/09/2026"The system is not without flaws, but the metascience discussion is not likely to improve the system but rather to generate munition to undermine it" 110
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 25/09/2026One day the internet will go down and it'll be like in The Simpsons when Lisa hides all the school's Teacher Editions and a bunch of 40yo men will be completely helpless without their ChatGPT. 060
Reposted by Samuel MooreUKSG @uksg.bsky.social · 25/09/2026This would also be extremely problematic: "They also argued that researchers with retracted publications should be sanctioned for a defined period." Retractions are for many reasons, not all of them malfeasance, and this would make the researchers much less likely to engage in the process. 131
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 25/09/2026I read the article on which this story is based and I can't believe that journals are still accepting research about predatory publishing based on **Beall's List** www.timeshighereducation.com/news/china-s...timeshighereducation.comChina ‘spends $7 million’ on research for retracted papersWith country now holding largest share of research retractions globally, scholars hope putting a number on the problem will trigger action 2146
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 24/09/2026"We are seeing a new awareness of the politics of publishing among humanities scholars, as it becomes increasingly clear that the humanities would do well not to repeat the mistakes of the sciences." Interview with Intercom Verlag journals.openedition.org/rhsh/12778journals.openedition.orgIntercom Verlag: how historians of science create new formats for p...Wolf Feuerhahn: You are part of the founding team of a new publisher of a very particular kind, intercom Verlag. Could you present your project and the reasons that led you to found the publishing ... 045
Reposted by Samuel MooreSamuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 23/09/2026The quotes from the author make him sound like exactly the kind of buffoon that would use AI to generate 200 shoddy papers.washingtonpost.comUsing AI, a professor wrote 200 papers this year. Researchers are alarmed.An online platform removed 257 papers written or co-written by the University of Chicago’s Nicholas Polson after other academics raised questions. 2102
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 23/09/2026I got one recently from a "CBBC presenter" which I thought fits my research profile pretty well. 111
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 23/09/2026The quotes from the author make him sound like exactly the kind of buffoon that would use AI to generate 200 shoddy papers.washingtonpost.comUsing AI, a professor wrote 200 papers this year. Researchers are alarmed.An online platform removed 257 papers written or co-written by the University of Chicago’s Nicholas Polson after other academics raised questions. 2102
Samuel Moore @samuelmoore.org · 23/09/2026"Elsevier is yet to offer an explanation on how it happened or say whether users should worry about their login credentials or other data having been stolen, but the affected domains and portals have been “cleaned” and are accessible and functional again." www.helpnetsecurity.com/2026/09/22/e...helpnetsecurity.comBrief hijack makes Elsevier domains redirect to LAPSUS$ "Chapter II" page - Help Net SecurityThree Elsevier domains have been redirecting users to a page branded "LAPSUS$ GROUP, Chapter II," counting down to a future victim. 000
Reposted by Samuel MooreSarah de Rijcke @sarahderijcke.nl · 22/09/2026What makes knowledge trustworthy? I explore that question in my Nature Comment “Six principles for supporting academic freedom in universities.” The piece offers six principles for assessing decisions that affect universities, including about funding, international collaborations and evaluations. 2112